{"title":"政党认同对审议重要吗?来自 \"波兰之声 \"实验的证据","authors":"Ramon van der Does, Honorata Mazepus","doi":"10.1177/14789299241245609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Deliberation among the public appears wanting, even in many of the world’s established democracies. This apparent lack of mutually respectful conversation among citizens about politics involving a give-and-take of reasons is often ascribed to growing affective polarisation. The more the citizens come to think of each other as belonging to opposing groups, the less likely it allegedly becomes that they will show respect towards each other or exchange arguments while talking politics. However, the empirical support for this common supposition remains tentative, as prior research suffers from potential endogeneity problems and selection bias. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel experimental design involving an imagined conversation on refugee policy in Poland. Our experimental test shows that, on average, participants’ inclination to deliberate did not significantly differ based on whether they imagined talking to someone from an ingroup or to someone from an outgroup instead. Our findings thereby suggest that the relationship between group identification and public deliberation might not be as straightforward as is often assumed. At least in some contexts, a lack of mutual group identification does not spell disaster for deliberation.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Party Identification Matter for Deliberation? Evidence from the Poland Speaks Experiment\",\"authors\":\"Ramon van der Does, Honorata Mazepus\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14789299241245609\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Deliberation among the public appears wanting, even in many of the world’s established democracies. This apparent lack of mutually respectful conversation among citizens about politics involving a give-and-take of reasons is often ascribed to growing affective polarisation. The more the citizens come to think of each other as belonging to opposing groups, the less likely it allegedly becomes that they will show respect towards each other or exchange arguments while talking politics. However, the empirical support for this common supposition remains tentative, as prior research suffers from potential endogeneity problems and selection bias. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel experimental design involving an imagined conversation on refugee policy in Poland. Our experimental test shows that, on average, participants’ inclination to deliberate did not significantly differ based on whether they imagined talking to someone from an ingroup or to someone from an outgroup instead. Our findings thereby suggest that the relationship between group identification and public deliberation might not be as straightforward as is often assumed. At least in some contexts, a lack of mutual group identification does not spell disaster for deliberation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46813,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Studies Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Studies Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241245609\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299241245609","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Does Party Identification Matter for Deliberation? Evidence from the Poland Speaks Experiment
Deliberation among the public appears wanting, even in many of the world’s established democracies. This apparent lack of mutually respectful conversation among citizens about politics involving a give-and-take of reasons is often ascribed to growing affective polarisation. The more the citizens come to think of each other as belonging to opposing groups, the less likely it allegedly becomes that they will show respect towards each other or exchange arguments while talking politics. However, the empirical support for this common supposition remains tentative, as prior research suffers from potential endogeneity problems and selection bias. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel experimental design involving an imagined conversation on refugee policy in Poland. Our experimental test shows that, on average, participants’ inclination to deliberate did not significantly differ based on whether they imagined talking to someone from an ingroup or to someone from an outgroup instead. Our findings thereby suggest that the relationship between group identification and public deliberation might not be as straightforward as is often assumed. At least in some contexts, a lack of mutual group identification does not spell disaster for deliberation.
期刊介绍:
Political Studies Review provides unrivalled review coverage of new books and literature on political science and international relations and does so in a timely and comprehensive way. In addition to providing a comprehensive range of reviews of books in politics, PSR is a forum for a range of approaches to reviews and debate in the discipline. PSR both commissions original review essays and strongly encourages submission of review articles, review symposia, longer reviews of books and debates relating to theories and methods in the study of politics. The editors are particularly keen to develop new and exciting approaches to reviewing the discipline and would be happy to consider a range of ideas and suggestions.